popsofctown
Smash Champion
Even if volunteer bias was a massive 20% of the votes, proban would still have a simple majority.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Unity Ruleset: Discussion
- Thread starter Unity Ruleset Committee
- Start date
Jane
Smash Hero
what variables in this matter? there are people that voted, and then the supposed people that didn't vote. those are the two variables. so it's really not "so many factors" -- just those two categories of people.
people who cared enough to vote, and people who didn't care to vote, for whatever reason. even if they were "gone for however long the poll was up and then came back right around now" (which would probably be people who quit because metaknight is gay. ever thought about how large a number of people that could be? i know at least a couple that have, and i'm sure most of everyone here does too.).
the people that cared enough to vote voted.
Cassio
Smash Master
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 3,185
More simply its breaks down to people who voted and people who didnt. The reasons are the variables, you have no way of knowing if it was only a matter of 'care' however you define that.
My completely subjective guesetimate is 60%. But yeah I also believe its likely a majority.
ぱみゅ
❤ ~
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 10,010
- Location
- Under your skirt
- NNID
- kyo.pamyu.pamyu
- 3DS FC
- 4785-5700-5699
- Switch FC
- SW 3264 5694 6605
Cassio, I think your point is done, and BRC is surely considering that when discussing.
I trust that their decision willbke the most appropiate one.
So, can we, please, stop talking about that and move into something more important?
There was a couple interesting ideas worth trying:
-Changing current DSR into "no stage may be chosen twice in a set"
-Changing current "counter-pick stage, then counter-pick characters" into "counter-pick either stage OR character".
Why they can't be implemented?
I trust that their decision willbke the most appropiate one.
So, can we, please, stop talking about that and move into something more important?
There was a couple interesting ideas worth trying:
-Changing current DSR into "no stage may be chosen twice in a set"
-Changing current "counter-pick stage, then counter-pick characters" into "counter-pick either stage OR character".
Why they can't be implemented?
I just picked a random 25 users and 1/5 had less than like 40 posts and had no activity since 2010.
So I guess 1/5 votes shouldn't have been counted from the previous poll? Probably around there anyway.
Nidtendofreak
Smash Hero
I'm actually predicting a small boost if MK is banned. A good number of people have just gotten fed up with him. No clue if it will last or not.
If you quit the game like 6+ months ago, even if MK was the main (or sole) reason you quit, it seems unlikely you would just come back after all that time. Its more likely that some MK mains will quit + people leaving on the high note of APEX.
But, who knows what could happen once some news of smash 4 trickles out. Back in 07, reading about Brawl was the only reason I popped Melee into my gamecube. Hype for a new version might get people curious about Brawl.
But, who knows what could happen once some news of smash 4 trickles out. Back in 07, reading about Brawl was the only reason I popped Melee into my gamecube. Hype for a new version might get people curious about Brawl.
None of the people who've left the community due to MK will come back for any length of time when he's gone. Despite what all you people think, you won't start winning when he's banned.
popsofctown
Smash Champion
You're kinda contradicting yourself. If people left because they think MK keeps them from winning, they will come back for some length of time. It doesn't matter what the reality is, it's what they believe..
Maybe they quit because they were tired of always losing against an MK, even though they knew they weren't gonna win the tourney? You don't have to be a top player to have a valid opinion, getting knocked out by varying characters is an indication that you have loads to work on (and you're working on them too, getting that MU experience YEAH), but getting knocked out by MK all the time is just boring.
People have different reasons man.
shlike
Smash Ace
This ruleset sucks. Needs more ponies.
John12346
Smash Master
I don't seem to recall this EVER being part of any pro-ban arguments...
With MK gone, the characters previously oppressed by MK's existence will be able to show their moves, and the metagame will take a defiant shift from "Learn how to defeat MK!" to "Learn how to defeat your counters!" Whether MK is legal or not, you're still going to need some 1337 skillz in order to win some fight money from tournies.
Steam
Smash Hero
yeah if I were to quit because of MK it would be because I have to play him ALL THE TIME and fighting him is a huge chore and is very boring since I have to respect everything he does >_>
That's not what people argue in actual debates, but it's at the core of their thought process and why the ban discussion actually came up to begin with.
Overswarm didn't argue for the initial ban to see more character diversity.
Reizilla
The Old Lapras and the Sea
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 13,676
So you're just lazy. Got it.
Cuz at the time saying he was overcentralizing was a bit of a stretch. But now that the game's progressed and LOTS of people have pocket MKs they use when they're in a tight spot, and now that we have much more data about MK's use, it's fine if we say he's overcentralizing the tourney scene.
"Oh no I'm about to lose! What can I do??? I should CP him to RC and choose MK!" usually leads to a noticeable easier win... Unless the opponent knows how to use MK too (lol this happens a lot) or is simply more dominant than the opponent.
Stuff like maining a character with a couple of weaknesses is possible now, only because MK covers all their weaknesses. Advantageous MUs against the rest of the cast, no bad stages, and you have a ban you can use against THEIR best stages. Choose DK, win match 1, choose MK match 2 and you may have a good chance at winning. If not, DK/MK will help you win match 3. Or, lose first, win 2nd with DK, then 3rd match go MK and you still have a good chance at winning. You keep CPing MK for DK's bad MUs, eventually you'll be using MK more than DK because you don't have to worry about bad MUs as much, then you'll find out you're maining MK and DK's your secondary... MK's just too good.
John12346
Smash Master
I... guess you have a point there, Thio. It probably stands to reason that a lot of pro-ban players, especially a lot of the pro-ban tournament scene players who do not cruise these boards may care more about their monetary placings more than the "correct" reasons for the ban. Although, it would also stand to reason that a lot of the arguments for the ban are the cause of many of these such players' low placings(ledge gayness, cannot be CP'd, etc), so... it would simply mean that pro-ban players take different mindsets and motives when considering the ban, I suppose.
With that in mind... isn't it enough when there are actual "correct" reasons for the ban, being argued by those few people who care more about the game than their own tournament placings, like myself?
Eh, this is more rambling than it is trying to make a point, w/e...
What Kewkky said is also a legitimate concern, you should have a look at that too, I guess.
With that in mind... isn't it enough when there are actual "correct" reasons for the ban, being argued by those few people who care more about the game than their own tournament placings, like myself?
Eh, this is more rambling than it is trying to make a point, w/e...
What Kewkky said is also a legitimate concern, you should have a look at that too, I guess.
Yeah, for the record, as a ZSS main, I picked up MK specifically for the Falco MU. She is impossible to take into a double blind because of Falco, especially in this region.
EDIT: I have not stated whether or not I am pro-ban or anti-ban at the moment, but the motivations of players on either side are heavily colored in the majority of cases by what they feel they stand to gain or lose.
EDIT: I have not stated whether or not I am pro-ban or anti-ban at the moment, but the motivations of players on either side are heavily colored in the majority of cases by what they feel they stand to gain or lose.
I personally don't care about MK, but if I had to choose a side I'd go for pro-ban (which I chose). I am aware of how stupid MK can be, which is why I go with pro- instead of anti-. I main ZSS and Kirby, so Falco's not a problem for me at all, and now that I'm getting a lot of Olimar experience, I have to say that I don't think I have any MUs left unchecked that are bad for both characters (except MK of course, only way to fix this is using MK and I refuse to use a character I don't like to play as).
I'm not disagreeing with either point; I actually just said that. I am trying to point out, however, that any influx of people you see when MK gets banned will likely be counterbalanced shortly thereafter by the same people leaving. This would be in addition to any loss of MK mains who simply do not have the motivation to start learning another character to the same level their MK was at.
There are more factors we have to take into account than theoretical game balance, such as community interest, how many people attend tourneys or watch streams, etc. And, once again, I'm not arguing for either side, I'm playing Devil's Advocate.
Govikings07
Smash Journeyman
<3
I don't really want to have to read all of this thread to look for some reasons why MK shouldn't be banned, so can I be given some? I know many reasons given by players why he should be banned but I want to know why he shouldnt be.
First and foremost of said reasons is that he is not actually broken.
Two other ones would be that "other games have one character that's the best, MK is this game's best character", and "you're all too immature to understand that every game has a best character".
ぱみゅ
❤ ~
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 10,010
- Location
- Under your skirt
- NNID
- kyo.pamyu.pamyu
- 3DS FC
- 4785-5700-5699
- Switch FC
- SW 3264 5694 6605
Shameless self bump.
Can we please forget about MK for a moment?
Steam
Smash Hero
this is an uneducated and irrelevant post.
DeLux
Player that used to be Lux
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 9,302
I don't have a particular answer for proposal one other than if a person wants to pick a stage they lost on, more power to them.
For option 2, I feel like that system emphasizes earlier games (specifically game one and the blind pick). This given an overwhelming advantage to the winner of the blind pick imo, which moves tendencies of victory, in theory, towards an element that's supposed to be as closed to competitively random as possible.
There's always the "innocent until proven guilty" argument against MK.
Though he's pretty dam guilty >.>
You have to think, there aren't going to be many situations where your opponent wouldn't let pick a stage he's already won on.
And it kinda amplifies the problem DSR already has, which is being biased towards a certain player in the set.
As for only allowing stage or character CPs, I'm pretty sure DMG showed that to be bad, and possibly giving the player who lost game 1 the advantage in the set.
Though he's pretty dam guilty >.>
I don't mind the idea of DSR applying to any stage picked in the set, but there's little point to it. (assuming we still have the gentleman's clause in place)
You have to think, there aren't going to be many situations where your opponent wouldn't let pick a stage he's already won on.
And it kinda amplifies the problem DSR already has, which is being biased towards a certain player in the set.
As for only allowing stage or character CPs, I'm pretty sure DMG showed that to be bad, and possibly giving the player who lost game 1 the advantage in the set.
Govikings07
Smash Journeyman
I main R.o.b. and Lucario and I know how you feel.
Hate going to tournaments, especially in California, and either losing or winning to an MK then having to go up against another and another. Game should just be called (SSBM) Super Smash Bros. Metaknight. People rely on him way too much. When I go against any character besides an MK and when I win there is a good chance s/he busts out with an MK for the next match.
I wonder why they would do this???? I'm sure there are many people that have experienced this. Is it for the cash prize? Is it for a name for them self? Or could it be they just want to be the better player? Either way this is a competition and if I can get rid of MKs (at least half or more the percentage of the smash community) to help myself then so be it. I don't care if I'm called selfish. It's not much different than picking up an MK (S tier) to help their chance at winning. It's a freaking competition! We mostly all are being selfish at points in a tournament to win. Also my name is Robert so I want to win as a R.o.b. :D
ぱみゅ
❤ ~
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 10,010
- Location
- Under your skirt
- NNID
- kyo.pamyu.pamyu
- 3DS FC
- 4785-5700-5699
- Switch FC
- SW 3264 5694 6605
Idea on the first proposal was stage diversity itself. Playing on a different stage for games 2 or more obviously has an advantage over one player, considering the first one was as neutral as possible
No true point to introduce it, no true point on reject it, imo.
The second one... well, it needs a very deep analysis on several scenarios.
Players gets VERY hard-countered with the current system, depending on the characters they chose, who counters them, and the available stages...
but it is not
The second one... well, it needs a very deep analysis on several scenarios.
Players gets VERY hard-countered with the current system, depending on the characters they chose, who counters them, and the available stages...
This is the first time I've ever heard of anything like this. I find it somewhat amusing.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
My Meta Knight is easily better than my main, I would only do worse in tournaments if Meta Knight was banned.
Yet I am still pro-ban.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
Let me remind you who won in our last two tournament sets 
Govikings07
Smash Journeyman
Hahaha I always get this at tournaments.
Person: Hey so whats your main and tag?
Me: Rob and Gv7
Person: Whats you name?
Me: Rob
Person: I said whats your name?
Me: My name is Rob! Just call me Robert.
Person: OHHHHHHHHH
Rob maining Rob!!!!!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2008
- Messages
- 26,545
yes
it is not up to the players to decide how the game "should" function when pushed to its limits (i.e. "play to win"). outside of the banning of random factors such as items and polarizing stages or stages that randomize results more than desired, you shouldn't need anything else to ensure the competitive integrity of the game. banning specific strategies, limiting the number of times you can do something that occurs frequently while recovering, and even preventing players from choosing a character selectable from the character select screen should not be necessary. if it really is, the game's competitive integrity itself is shallow and weak, and it shouldn't be played competitively. play it casually, put up with the bull****, or find another game.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
I would love nothing more than for Brawl to be played "lightly" competitive, where people play with a genuine metagame and try and win, but the focus was the fun of competition instead of the aim to win money or respect.
Or we could ban the character, and play the game without him.
It's not either, play the game unchanged, or don't play it at all, things don't work like that.
Brawl is a game many players feel is worth playing, more so without a character whose players take over 50% of the pot from tournaments.
And as for limiting something used while recovering, you know there's Melee players who want a LGL for their game as well right?
Oh and do I have to mention wobbling? Or Peach Bomber stalling? Or Rising Pound stall? The latter two are limited, and can be used for recovering, and rising pound at least even occurs often while recovering.
Who are you to decide what should be necessary to play the game? You play competitive Melee, a game with an excessive amount of bannings and limitations placed on it just to play it, similar to Brawl.
Supermodel From Paris
Smash Hero
We're not switching to Project M. Stop asking.